PUBLIC    DUTIES 
of    EDUCATED 

MEN         An   Address 

Delivered  by  William  F.  Herrin 
June  the  Fourteenth,  Nineteen 
Hundred  and  Ten,  atCorvallis 
Oregon,  During  the  Quarter 
Centennial  Jubilee  Exercises  of 
Oregon      Agricultural      College 


WITH    THE    COMPLIMENTS 


OF 


William   F.  Herri 


N 


1? 


en 


>- 


«3u 

■  s 

c:.! 


PUBLIC      DUTIES      OF 
EDUCATED       MEN 

President  Kerr,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 


THIRTY-SEVEN  years  ago  this  month  I  received  my 
degree  from  Corvallis  College.  Many  since  then 
are  the  changes  that  have  come  over  the  spirit  of  my 
dream.  Nor  have  the  passing  years  left  untouched 
or  unchanged  our  Alma  Mater.  Then  she  was 
encountering  the  struggles  incident  to  the  founding 
of  a  college  in  a  pioneer  country.  Now,  though  still 
young,  and  with  the  promise  of  the  years  fair  before 
her,  she  has  won  a  recognized  and  enviable  place  among  the 
colleges  of  the  West.  Thirty-seven  years  is  no  great  stretch 
of  time  in  the  history  of  an  institution,  though  in  the  measure 
and  significance  of  man's  life  it  may  count  for  the  greater  part. 
As  I  stand  here  today  the  air  seems  vibrant  with  the  echoes  of 
half-forgotten  yesterdays  and  the  memories  of  my  student  life, 
with  its  hopes,  its  trials,  and  its  joys.  There  comes,  too, 
recollections  of  the  sustained  effort  required  to  unlock  the 
treasures  of  learning,  and,  when  these  had  been  in  some  part 
gained,  the  buoyant  hope  inspired  by  real  conquest.  Now, 
from  the  vantage  ground  of  added  years  and  an  ampler  experi- 
ence, perhaps  I  am  in  a  better  position  than  those  of  you  who 
are  just  on  the  threshold  of  life,  to  judge  of  the  relative  values 
of  the  things  for  which  men  strive.  And  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  rewards  of  the  scholar  are  more  fruitful  of  real  happiness, 
and  make  more  for  permanent  satisfaction,  than  the  rewards 
gained  in  ordinary  business  or  professional  pursuits,  for  the 
scholar  deals  with  that  learning  which  is  the  finer  essence  of  our 
intellectual  life,  which  "has  been  purified  and  sifted  in  quiet 


[3] 


rooms,  to  which  passing  fashions  of  thought  do  not  penetrate." 
The  pursuit  of  truth  for  its  own  sake  brings  us  to  know  the 
human  spirit  in  its  unchanged  and  unchanging  nature,  to  know 
the  things  which  abide  with  us,  and  to  reject  that  which  is 
ephemeral  and  of  only  passing  interest.  In  the  words  of 
President  Wilson  of  Princeton  University: 

"The  fountains  of  learning  become  the  fountains  of  per- 
petual youth.  At  them  are  our  minds  renewed ;  at  them  do  we 
drink  of  the  pure  waters  undenled,  whose  sources  lie  below  all 
circumstance,  all  accident,  all  surface  temperature  or  season. 
After  we  have  tasted  of  them,  much  of  the  talk  of  the  day  seems 
like  the  mere  lees  of  cheap  wine  of  the  vintage  of  yesterday. 
We  are  renewed  by  learning,  in  the  sense  that  our  minds  are, 
as  it  were,  brought  back  to  the  original  and  first  bases  of 
thought,  to  direct  communion  with  all  that  is  primitive  and 
permanent,  and  beyond  analysis  and  conjecture." 

It  is  therefore  with  real  pleasure  that  I  find  myself  here 
today  after  the  lapse  of  so  many  eventful  years.  And  mingled 
with  that  pleasure  is  a  sense  of  responsibility  and  genuine 
concern  as  to  what  I  should  say  on  this  occasion  that  might 
be  of  value  to  you.  Upon  reflection  it  has  seemed  to  me  that 
I  could  not  better  employ  this  opportunity  than  to  bring  home 
to  you,  with  such  emphasis  as  I  can,  the  truth  of  a  conviction 
that  has  more  and  more  gained  upon  me  as  the  years  have 
gone  by.  That  conviction,  briefly  put,  amounts  to  this:  that 
upon  the  educated  men  and  women  of  this  country,  and  more 
especially  upon  the  graduates  of  our  colleges  and  universities, 
there  devolve  public  duties  and  civic  responsibilities  which 
they  may  not,  without  proving  recreant  to  their  trust,  either 
ignore  or  evade.  Just  what  some  of  these  special  duties  are, 
it  will  be  the  purpose  of  this  address  to  indicate;  but  at  the 
outset  let  me  declare  my  wish  to  avoid,  in  what  I  have  to  say, 
any  narrow  controversial  spirit,  and  to  keep  as  closely  as 
possible  upon  ground  that  is  not  debatable.  At  the  same  time 
I  shall  follow  my  convictions  though  they  may  seem  to  run 
counter  to  certain  ideas  advanced  in  the  name  of  reform. 

16] 


Never,  in  the  history  of  our  country,  has  there  been  greater 
need  for  intelligent  public  leadership  than  now;  and  it  is  my 
firm  opinion  that  the  college  or  university  that  makes  no 
attempt  to  equip  its  students  for  such  leadership,  even  though 
it  may  turn  out  competent  engineers,  expert  chemists,  and 
skilled  lawyers,  has  failed  signally  to  achieve  one  of  the  im- 
portant ends  for  which  it  exists.  Every  student,  no  matter 
what  his  special  "course"  may  be,  whether  it  be  civil  or  mechan- 
ical engineering,  or  biology,  or  the  humanities — every  student 
should  receive  instruction  in  what,  for  want  of  a  better  term, 
I  shall  call  the  philosophy  of  our  political  institutions.  I  would 
not  be  understood  as  implying  that  our  colleges  and  universities 
do  nothing  toward  this  end.  That  would  not  be  true.  What 
I  am  pleading  for  is  that  this  instruction  shall  not  be  limited, 
as  it  is  at  present,  to  a  comparatively  few  students  in  institu- 
tional history,  but  that  it  should  be  made  more  general.  I 
emphasize  this  point  because  I  have  seen  so  many  otherwise 
intelligent  men  and  women  who,  when  it  came  to  a  question 
of  grave  public  policy,  were  at  the  mercy  of  every  political 
charlatan  that  appeared.  Educated  and  estimable  citizens, 
who  could  not  be  deceived  for  a  moment  by  a  quack  who  would 
offer  them  some  patent  nostrum  as  a  cure  for  all  the  ills  that 
flesh  is  heir  to,  will  yet  accept  without  question  any  political 
"cure-all"  that  may  be  offered  them.  Nowadays  most  edu- 
cated people  are  rightly  skeptical  concerning  short  cuts  to 
health,  or  short  cuts  to  happiness,  but  offer  them  a  short  cut  to 
political  perfection  and  they  become  credulous  almost  to  the 
point  of  superstition. 

Now  we  cannot  reasonably  expect  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  to  exercise  critical  judgment  in  matters  in  which  they 
have  not  been  trained,  but  surely  the  state  has  a  right  to  expect 
that  its  educated  men  and  women  shall  give  it  the  benefit  of 
their  more  mature  judgment  when  matters  of  grave  public 
import  are  being  considered.  An  active  and  intelligent  interest 
in  public  affairs  is  therefore  a  duty  that  one  who  has  profited 
by  a  collegiate  education  cannot  escape.    Nor  could  any  field 

[  i  1 


more  interesting  or  more  important  challenge  his  attention. 
Glance  for  a  moment  at  some  of  the  interesting  aspects  pre- 
sented by  this  subject.  Thirty  years  ago,  commerce  between 
the  states  moved  almost  entirely  without  regulation,  so  far  as 
the  National  Government  was  concerned.  Now  we  have  an 
elaborate  code  of  laws  enacted  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  designed  to  regulate  our  interstate  commerce  and  the 
corporations  and  individuals  engaged  therein.  Similar  laws 
have  been  and  are  being  enacted  by  the  different  states  to 
govern  their  local  concerns.  The  government  of  our  cities 
and  municipalities  has  given  rise  to  many  vexed  questions, 
which  are  still  unsettled;  the  laws  governing  the  elective  fran- 
chise have  undergone  and  have  yet  to  undergo  many  important 
changes.  Upon  all  these  subjects,  and  many  others  closely 
affecting  the  individual  citizen,  our  laws  may  be  said  to  be  in  a 
formative  period,  and  the  questions  raised  are  vital  and  far- 
reaching  and  have  necessarily  provoked  and  are  provoking 
much  public  discussion.  We  may  sum  up  all  this  agitation 
and  discussion  as  an  effort  to  better  our  government  and  to 
remove  the  evils  which  have  arisen  under  the  laws  heretofore 
existing.  No  good  citizen  can  fail  to  be  interested  in  these 
questions,  and  I  think  no  one  will  take  issue  with  me  when  I 
say  that  one  of  the  highest  duties  resting  upon  the  citizen  is  to 
take  an  active  interest  in  the  politics  of  his  country,  to  do  his 
utmost  to  secure  the  best  government  possible,  and  especially 
to  oppose  any  innovations  or  tendencies  which  may  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  principles  of  representative  government 
upon  which  its  stability  and  permanency  must  ultimately 
depend. 

In  its  last  analysis  our  government  is  essentially  a  govern- 
ment based  upon  and  controlled  by  public  opinion.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that: 

"In  proportion  as  public  opinion  is  wise  and  enlightened, 
the  government  will  be  enlightened  and  wise.  In  other  words, 
the  people  will  always  have  as  good  a  government  as  their 
intelligence  and  patriotism  deserve,  and  no  better.    In  the  long 

[  8] 


run,  government  can  be  made  better  only  by  the  improvement 
of  the  public  opinion  upon  which  it  rests." 

In  his  American  Commonwealth,  Mr.  Bryce  devotes  much 
space  to  the  consideration  of  public  opinion,  its  nature,  its 
growth,  and  its  influence  in  the  evolution  of  government.  In 
speaking  of  the  national  characteristics  of  our  people,  he  says : 

"The  Americans  are  at  bottom  a  conservative  people,  in 
virtue  both  of  the  deep  instinct  of  their  race  and  of  that  practical 
shrewdness  which  recognizes  the  value  of  permanence  and 
solidity  in  institutions.  They  are  conservative  in  their  funda- 
mental beliefs,  in  the  structure  of  their  governments,  in  their 
social  and  domestic  usages.  They  are  like  a  tree  whose  pendu- 
lous shoots  quiver  and  rustle  with  the  slightest  breeze,  while 
its  roots  enfold  the  rock  with  a  grasp  which  storms  cannot 
loosen." 

Mr.  Bryce  here  strikes  the  keynote  of  the  American 
character  and  indicates  the  sources  of  that  public  opinion 
which  has  thus  far  controlled  the  destinies  of  our  nation. 
It  was  this  conservatism  which  molded  and  produced  the 
American  Constitution,  which  has  construed  its  provisions  and 
formulated  the  laws  which  have  been  enacted  and  enforced 
since  its  creation.  To  this  conservatism,  more  than  to  anything 
else,  Mr.  Bryce  points  out,  is  due  the  stability  of  our  govern- 
ment and  its  institutions  and  the  success  which  our  people 
have  achieved  in  self-government.  It  is  interesting,  therefore, 
to  consider  for  a  moment  whether  we  are  in  danger  of  losing 
this  conservatism,  whether  there  are  tendencies  in  present-day 
legislation,  or  in  reforms  recently  proposed,  which  may  carry 
us  from  our  moorings  to  new  and  strange  seas  of  political 
experiment,  and  expose  us  perhaps  to  danger  of  national 
shipwreck. 

As  ours  is  a  government  controlled  by  public  opinion,  it  is 
important  to  inquire  what  that  opinion  is,  and  how  it  is  formed. 
Much  has  been  written  about  public  opinion  as  a  governmental 
and  political  force,  yet  we  have  no  generally  accepted  definition 
of  the  term;  in  fact,  it  is  a  thing  most  elusive  and  most  difficult 

[9  1 


to  define,  resembling  in  this  respect  some  of  the  great  facts  and 
problems  of  human  existence  with  which  we  constantly  deal, 
as  well  as  some  of  the  natural  forces  with  which  physics  is 
concerned.  If  we  will  but  reflect  a  moment,  however,  we  will 
see  that  it  is  the  great  things  of  existence  that  most  persistently 
elude  analysis  or  even  description.  Who,  for  instance,  has 
ever  given  us  an  adequate  definition  of  life  ?  Yet,  almost  since 
the  dawn  of  history,  this  problem  has  engaged  the  most  pro- 
found intellects,  and  today  we  are  no  nearer  the  solution  than 
we  were  centuries  ago.  But  the  fact  that  we  cannot  adequately 
define  life  does  not  make  it  any  the  less  worth  living.  And  so 
it  is  with  the  phenomena  that  lie  at  the  threshold  of  emotional 
and  of  religious  experience,  and  with  the  secret  of  human  per- 
sonality, and  with  what  we  call  the  national  spirit,  or  the  moving 
impulses  of  a  people.  All  these  are  important  forces  in  human 
life  and  determining  factors  in  human  development,  yet  they 
elude  definition.  In  the  sphere  of  physical  science  we  have 
like  difficulties.  Who,  for  example,  has  ever  satisfactorily 
defined  electricity?  Yet  that  does  not  prevent  us  from  using 
electricity  nor  from  recognizing  it  as  one  of  the  greatest  physical 
forces  at  the  disposition  of  man. 

Therefore,  though  we  find  it  difficult  or  even  impossible 
adequately  to  define  public  opinion,  that  need  not  blind  us  to 
its  importance  nor  to  the  tremendous  part  it  plays  and  has 
always  played  in  shaping  our  institutions  and  in  determining 
the  form  of  our  government.  Though  we  may  not  say  pre- 
cisely what  public  opinion  is,  I  think  we  can  say  with  some 
degree  of  positiveness  what  it  is  not.  It  is  not,  and  never  was, 
what  is  said  or  done  by  the  frenzied  mob,  and  whether  the  mob 
is  a  small  isolated  group  of  men  acting  under  the  stress  of  great 
excitement,  or  is  an  entire  community  in  the  passing  grip  of 
the  mob-spirit,  our  conclusion  must  be  the  same :  that  what  is 
done  or  prompted  by  the  mob-spirit  can  in  no  proper  sense  of 
the  term  be  said  to  be  a  manifestation  of  public  opinion.  We 
may  then  say  that  public  opinion  is  the  opposite  of  the  spirit 
which  controls  the  mob  or  goes  with  any  excitable,  passionate 

[  10  ] 


action.  I  would  say  that  the  true  public  opinion  of  a  people  is 
and  must  be  the  result  of  their  serious,  deliberate  thought. 
Therefore,  public  opinion,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  use  the  term, 
is  the  deliberate  and  reasoned  judgment  of  the  community. 

It  is  a  curious  but  significant  fact  that  our  newspapers 
rarely  invoke  public  opinion  except  in  times  of  public  excite- 
ment. They  then  speak  of  "public  sentiment  being  fully 
aroused,"  or  of  "public  opinion  demanding"  this  or  that. 
They  apparently  assume  that  public  opinion — the  deliberate, 
reasoned  judgment  of  a  community — manifests  itself  most 
unmistakably  at  times  of  great  public  excitement.  Public 
passion  may  show  itself  at  such  times,  public  caprice,  public 
prejudice,  perhaps,  but  not  public  opinion  in  the  true  meaning 
of  that  term.  We  must  constantly  bear  in  mind  the  great 
difference  between  public  opinion  and  public  clamor,  the 
former  a  deliberate  and  reasoned  judgment  giving  expression 
to  the  sober  second  thought  of  a  law-abiding  community,  the 
latter  a  momentary  or  temporary  ebullition  of  passion  or 
excitement,  hysterical  rather  than  rational — the  one  construc- 
tive and  making  for  the  best  and  highest  interests  of  the  com- 
munity, the  other  essentially  destructive  and  transitory,  and 
almost  always  at  variance  with  the  forces  that  make  for  per- 
manence and  stability. 

Obviously,  then,  the  formation  and  growth  of  public 
opinion,  of  this  force  so  impalpable  yet  so  powerful  for  good 
or  evil,  becomes  a  matter  of  grave  national  importance.  People 
sometimes  mistakenly  imagine  that  public  opinion  is  something 
different  from  the  collective  opinion  of  the  individuals  who 
compose  the  public;  they  seem  to  think  that  they  have  but 
little  part  in  its  formation  and  direction,  and  that  the  only  way 
to  ascertain  what  it  is,  is  to  accept  what  the  newspapers  say 
about  it.  Now  this  passive  attitude  of  the  people  in  regard  to 
the  creation  and  direction  of  public  opinion  often  leads  to  their 
being  deceived  as  to  what  it  really  is,  and  sometimes  permits 
a  small  but  clamorous  minority  temporarily  to  foist  its  views 
and  policies  upon  the  community. 

[  11  1 


As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  formation  and  growth  of  public 
opinion  is  an  intricate  and  complicated  process.  Not  only  is  it 
difficult  at  any  particular  moment  to  ascertain  what  it  is,  but 
it  is  slow  in  manifesting  itself.  Now  this  slowness  in  mani- 
festing itself,  far  from  being  a  drawback,  is  a  decided  advantage. 
On  this  point  I  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  again  from 
Mr.  Bryce: 

"We  must  remember,"  says  the  author  of  the  American 
Commonwealth,  "how  much  is  gained  as  well  as  lost  by  the 
slow  and  hesitating  working  of  public  opinion  in  the  United 
States.  So  tremendous  a  force  would  be  dangerous  if  it  moved 
rashly.  Acting  over  and  gathered  from  an  enormous  area,  in 
which  there  exist  many  local  differences,  it  needs  time,  often  a 
long  time,  to  become  conscious  of  the  preponderance  of  one  set 
of  tendencies  over  another.  The  elements  both  of  local  differ- 
ence and  of  class  difference  must  be,  so  to  speak,  well  shaken 
up  together,  and  each  part  brought  into  contact  with  the  rest, 
before  the  mixed  liquid  can  produce  a  precipitate  in  the  form 
of  a  practical  conclusion." 

Bearing  this  point  in  mind,  I  would  have  you  notice  how 
wisely  planned  our  political  machinery  is  for  giving  expression 
to  true  public  opinion,  and  for  preventing  public  excitement 
from  working  the  mischief  it  might  otherwise  produce.  It  is 
not  my  purpose  to  review  the  entire  system  of  checks  and 
balances  which  is  so  noteworthy  a  feature  of  our  system  of 
government,  but  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  wisdom  of 
having  our  elections  occur  at  definitely  fixed  and  stated  inter- 
vals, and  of  having  the  tenure  of  office  of  our  public  officials 
determined  by  law.  I  take  up  this  aspect  of  my  subject  rather 
than  another  because  so  many  of  the  short  cuts  to  political 
perfection  would  in  a  short  time  nullify  these  advantages  which 
make  so  directly  for  the  stability  and  permanence  of  our 
government. 

One  of  the  advantages  of  having  our  elections  come  at 
fixed  and  stated  intervals  is,  to  quote  the  words  of  President 
Taft,  used  in  a  slightly  different  connection: 

[  12  ] 


"To  impose  obstructions  to  sudden  emotional  movements 
of  the  people,  not  taken  with  the  deliberation  necessary  to 
secure  wisdom;  movements  that  ought  to  be  delayed  and  held 
up  until  they  could  pass  not  only  under  the  observation  of 
Philip  drunk,  but  of  Philip  sober." 

In  other  words,  our  elections  coming  at  fixed  intervals, 
preceded  as  they  are  by  campaigns  of  education  and  instruction, 
makes  it  possible  for  public  opinion  to  crystallize  and  to  sepa- 
rate itself  from  the  hastily  formed  and  ill-considered  judgments 
incident  to  the  heat  and  excitement  of  nominating  conventions. 

It  is  easy,  therefore,  to  understand  that  if  our  elections  were 
not  held  at  stated  times  fixed  by  law,  but  were  held  instead  at 
indefinite  times,  according  to  contingencies  which  might  arise, 
the  result  of  such  elections  might  easily  turn  upon  the  tempo- 
rary excitement  and  passions  of  the  people,  and  it  might  be 
impossible  in  many  cases  to  have  a  sufficiently  long  campaign 
of  education  by  which  might  be  secured  the  cool,  deliberate 
judgment  of  the  people,  freed  from  passions  and  prejudice 
which  often  exist  temporarily  and  which  for  the  time  exercise 
a  controlling  influence.  It  has  frequently  occurred  in  our 
national  elections  that  public  sentiment  at  the  beginning  of  a 
campaign,  before  the  questions  at  issue  have  been  discussed, 
was  strongly  opposed  to  the  verdict  given  after  thorough 
discussion,  and  I  suppose  that  no  one  would  contend  that  the 
judgment  of  the  people,  formed  after  thorough  consideration, 
should  not  be  preferred  to  a  judgment  given  without  such  con- 
sideration, or  after  only  a  partial  or  limited  consideration. 
And  I  submit  that  our  system  of  a  fixed  tenure  of  office,  and 
of  elections  held  at  stated  times,  is  far  superior  as  a  means  of 
forming  and  reaching  a  sound  public  opinion  than  is  the 
English  system  where  a  vote  in  Parliament  adverse  to  the 
government  may  precipitate  a  general  election  at  a  time  when 
the  public  mind  is  exercised  by  great  passion  or  excitement — 
a  condition  certainly  not  conducive  to  a  sober  or  even  patriotic 
judgment.  There  is  no  one  of  us  who  would  not  mistrust  his 
own  judgment  formed  in  passion  or  excitement.    The  wise  man 

[  13] 


always  sleeps  before  making  up  his  mind  on  important  matters, 
and  when  the  whole  people,  or  a  community,  are  to  consider 
and  decide  important  issues,  it  is  more  important  than  in  the 
individual  case  that  the  opinion  should  be  made  up  only  after 
mature  consideration  and  that  it  should  be  freed,  as  far  as 
possible,  from  the  sway  of  passion  or  prejudice. 

But  let  us  return  a  moment  to  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining 
public  opinion,  which  is  the  guide  that  must  ultimately  control 
in  all  governmental  matters. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  difference  between  public  opinion  and 
public  clamor,  and  how  careful  we  should  be  not  to  mistake 
the  one  for  the  other.  We  saw,  too,  that  the  newspapers  were 
not  always  safe  guides  to  follow,  for  while  they  reflect  public 
opinion,  they  reflect  public  clamor  also,  and  frequently  confuse 
the  two,  and  perhaps  while  I  have  been  speaking  some  of  you 
have  been  wondering  what  test  I  would  lay  down  by  which  you 
might  easily  and  infallibly  distinguish  the  genuine  from  the 
spurious.  But  if  such  were  your  expectations,  I  fear  I  shall  be 
forced  to  disappoint  them.  There  are  no  empirical  tests  which 
you  can  apply,  any  more  than  formulas  for  success  in  life,  or 
rules  for  the  certain  attainment  of  happiness.  Problems  such 
as  we  are  dealing  with  today  are  too  wide  and  too  far-reaching 
to  be  solved  in  this  summary  fashion.  Yet  some  solution  I 
must  indicate,  and  if  you  ask  me  what  that  solution  is,  I  answer: 
in  education,  in  the  realization  of  the  ideal  for  which  this 
institution  stands.  The  political  salvation  of  our  country 
today  depends  upon  the  leadership  of  our  educated  men  and 
women — upon  the  men  and  women  who  have  been  trained  to 
do  their  own  thinking,  and  who  have  been  well  grounded  in  the 
history  of  their  country  and  in  the  philosophy  of  its  institutions. 
The  essential  part  of  such  education  is  a  thorough  understanding 
of  our  national  history,  and  an  intelligent  attachment  to  the 
ideals  and  principles  upon  which  our  government  is  founded. 

You  will  observe  that  I  include  women  among  those  upon 
whom  rest  political  responsibilities.  The  fact  that  women  have 
not  generally  been  granted  the  suffrage  does  not  absolve  them 


14 


from  this  public  duty.  The  depositing  of  a  ballot  in  a  ballot- 
box  is  but  an  insignificant  part  of  the  duties  of  American 
citizenship.  The  creating  and  fostering  of  intelligent  public 
opinion  is  an  incomparably  more  important  matter^and  one 
in  which  women  may  be  quite  as  influential  as  men,  and  I  have 
sometimes  thought  that  if  those  women  who  have  striven  to 
secure  the  right  to  vote  had  but  turned  their  labors  toward  the 
formation  of  a  public  opinion  in  furtherance  of  the  aims  which 
they  expect  to  reach  through  suffrage,  they  would  have  accom- 
plished, and  will  accomplish  in  the  future,  much  more  than 
could  be  gained  by  the  mere  privilege  of  voting. 

It  is  not  going  too  far  to  say  that  the  stability  attained  by 
our  government  thus  far  has  been  due  in  no  small  measure  to 
the  fact  that  in  supreme  crises,  men  of  responsibility  have  stood 
their  ground  and  have  done  their  duty  in  spite  of  the  clamorous 
outcry  of  the  multitude  and  the  revilings  of  an  excited  press. 
The  men  of  whom  this  may  be  said  did  their  noble  part  in 
making  and  directing  sound  public  opinion.  They  did  not, 
with  "ears  to  the  ground,"  listen  for  voices  that  would  lead 
them  to  popularity.  Rather,  having  conscientious  convictions 
in  regard  to  the  course  they  would  pursue,  they  declared  and 
maintained  that  course  against  all  clamor  and  opposition,  and 
thus  proved  that  in  a  popular  government  based  upon  public 
opinion,  statesmen  of  the  noblest  patriotism  may  exist,  and 
that  such  a  government  does  not  necessarily  reduce  all  men 
in  public  life  to  the  level  of  timeserving  politicians.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  is  a  type  of  man  in 
public  life,  of  small  intellectual  caliber  and  narrow  outlook, 
who  seeks  to  advance  his  selfish  interests  by  flattering  deference 
to  every  passing  whim  of  what  he  considers  "the  majority." 
This  is  the  type  of  man  that  has  led  the  best  informed  of  our 
foreign  critics  to  remark: 

"In  America  the  practical  statesman  is  apt  to  be  timid  in 
advocacy  as  well  as  infertile  in  suggestion.  He  seems  to  be 
always  listening  for  the  popular  voice,  always  afraid  to  commit 
himself  to  a  view  which  may  turn  out  unpopular.    *    *    * 

[  15] 


It  has  been  observed  that  all  the  subduing  power  of  the  popular 
voice  may  tell  against  the  appearance  of  great  statesmen,  by 
dwarfing  aspiring  individualities  by  teaching  men  to  discover 
and  obey  the  tendencies  of  their  age  rather  than  to  rise  above 
them  and  direct  them." 

"If  this  happens  in  America,"  continues  our  critic,  "it  is 
not  because  the  American  people  fails  to  appreciate  and  follow 
and  exalt  such  eminent  men  as  fortune  bestows  upon  it.  It 
has  great  capacity  for  loyalty,  even  for  hero-worship." 

In  support  of  this  view  he  cites  instances  where  the 
American  people  has  followed  with  devotion  its  great  men, 
saying: 

"A  kind  of  dictatorship  was  yielded  to  Abraham  Lincoln, 
whose  memory  is  cherished  almost  like  that  of  Washington 
himself." 

It  is  indeed  one  of  the  most  hopeful  and  reassuring  signs 
of  our  national  career  that  our  great  presidents  have  been  men 
who  have  had  to  a  marked  degree  the  ability  to  distinguish 
between  public  clamor  and  true  public  opinion.  Washington 
had  this  ability  in  a  large  measure,  and  Lincoln,  it  would  seem, 
had  it  in  even  greater  measure.  To  my  mind,  there  is  no  more 
striking  contrast  in  American  history  than  that  presented  by 
the  lives  and  characters  of  our  two  greatest  statesmen.  Yet 
in  at  least  one  important  particular  their  resemblance  was 
notable:  they  were  both  too  great  in  inherent  nobility  of  char- 
acter meanly  to  surrender  to  a  clamorous  press,  or  to  follow  in 
the  wake  of  a  passion-stirred  populace.  Yet  of  no  two  men 
in  all  our  history  can  it  be  so  indisputably  affirmed  that  they 
more  truly  represented  the  enlightened  public  opinion  of  their 
times. 

You  will  recall  that  this  government  had  not  long  been 
founded  when  a  situation  arose  that  was  fraught  with  the 
gravest  consequences,  and  which  if  it  had  not  been  promptly 
and  wisely  met  might  have  jeopardized  the  very  existence  of 
the  Republic.  In  1793  war  broke  out  between  France  and 
England,  and  threatened  to  involve  the  United  States.    All 

[  16] 


over  this  country  public  sentiment  was  running  high  in  favor 
of  France,  and  the  reasons  were  obvious.  Our  country  was 
still  smarting  from  the  wounds  inflicted  by  England  during 
the  War  of  Independence.  It  was  almost  ten  years"s?nce  Sir 
Guy  Carlton  and  his  English  troopers  had  sailed  away,  and 
yet  England  contemptuously  refused  to  make  a  treaty  with  us. 
Her  troops  held  our  frontier  forts,  our  citizens  were  still  unpaid 
for  the  slaves  and  property  she  had  carried  off,  her  ports  were 
closed  to  our  ships,  and  she  was  even  seeking  to  drive  our  flag 
from  the  seas.  On  the  other  hand,  there  was  France,  our 
generous  ally,  to  whom  we  were  bound  by  ties  of  gratitude  and 
by  formal  treaties.  Had  she  not  been  the  first  to  recognize 
our  independence  ?  In  the  dark  days  of  our  struggle  had  she 
not  given  us  generously  of  her  aid  ?  Had  she  not  sent  us  ships 
and  troops  and  money,  and  helped  us  in  many  ways?  And 
now  the  hour  of  her  struggle  was  at  hand  and  she  turned  to  us 
whom  she  had  so  generously  befriended,  and  asked  if  she  might 
use  our  ports  in  which  to  fit  out  her  privateers.  What  was  our 
answer  to  be  ? 

This  was  the  situation  as  it  presented  itself  to  the  public 
generally  and  to  the  press.  From  all  over  the  country  went  up 
the  impulsive  cry:  "Let  us  help  France,  who  was  so  generous 
to  us."  But  Washington,  with  patriotic  and  clear  vision,  said, 
"No,  we  must  not  take  sides  in  this  quarrel;  we  must  remain 
neutral  and  treat  the  French  and  English  alike."  Then  the 
storm  burst.  From  every  side  Washington  was  assailed  with 
criticism.  He  was  stigmatized  as  disloyal  to  a  friend,  traitor- 
ous to  an  ally,  and  unfaithful  to  his  trust.  For  the  moment  he 
seemed  to  stand  alone.  He  was  denounced  in  the  streets, 
from  the  rostrum,  in  the  public  prints.  His  house  was  sur- 
rounded by  the  multitude  from  day  to  day,  huzzaing,  demand- 
ing war  against  England,  cursing  Washington,  and  crying  for 
success  to  the  French.  But  Washington  was  not  to  be  swerved 
from  his  purpose.  He  stood  firm  against  the  four  winds.  He 
suffered,  and  suffered  keenly,  but  he  remained  true  to  his  trust 
in  spite  of  public  clamor  and  in  the  face  of  strong  public  dis- 

[  n  ] 


approval.  And  history  has  vindicated  him.  Even  the  public 
opinion  of  his  day  approved  of  his  action;  but  this  public 
opinion  could  not  make  itself  heard  until  public  clamor  had 
subsided  and  reason  had  asserted  itself.  That  Washington 
succeeded  in  steering  clear  of  the  rocks  is  not  to  be  attributed 
to  the  fact  that  there  were  no  false  lights  displayed  to  lure  him 
from  his  course;  for  of  false  lights  and  of  darkened  counsel 
there  shall  never  be  a  lack. 

Of  Lincoln's  administration  this  was  especially  true,  and 
the  situation  was  further  complicated  by  the  fact  that  many  of 
his  friends  and  official  advisers,  whose  honesty  was  beyond 
question,  openly  opposed  him  because  their  view  of  the  great 
issues  involved  was  less  comprehensive  than  his.  Scarcely  a 
week  passed  but  deputations  representing  thousands  of  his 
countrymen  waited  upon  him  to  urge  him  to  change  his  policy 
so  as  to  make  it  conform  to  their  views.  When  it  became 
evident  that  Lincoln  would  not  permit  honest,  though  misin- 
formed and  partial,  public  sentiment  to  dictate  to  him,  his 
policy,  his  motives  were  fiercely  attacked.  "No  man,"  remarks 
Joseph  Choate,  "was  ever  made  the  subject  of  such  unwar- 
ranted abuse,  vilification  and  ridicule  as  Abraham  Lincoln." 
And  all  this  at  a  time  when  he  stood  most  in  need  of  sympathetic 
and  intelligent  support.  The  attack  seemed  to  culminate  when 
one  of  the  ablest  and  most  influential  men  of  his  time  suddenly 
turned  against  him  and  smote  him  with  cruel  injustice.  This 
man  was  no  other  than  Horace  Greeley,  an  old  friend  of  the 
President,  the  editor  of  the  powerful  New  York  Tribune  and  a 
tremendous  force  in  the  shaping  and  directing  of  public  opinion. 
At  this  distance  of  time  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for  us 
adequately  to  realize  the  widespread  sensation  that  was  caused 
when  in  the  summer  of  1862,  Horace  Greeley  addressed  to 
President  Lincoln  his  famous  Prayer  of  Twenty  Millions  of 
People.  It  was  a  move  of  national  significance,  and  it  involved 
issues  of  more  than  passing  moment.  This  "Prayer,"  which 
purported  to  give  voice  to  the  sentiment  of  twenty  millions  of 
loyal  citizens,  practically  charged  Lincoln  with  having  been 

I  is  ] 


unfaithful  to  the  great  trust  reposed  in  him,  with  having  failed 
to  execute  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  with  having  paid  a  "mis- 
taken deference  to  rebel  slavery."  It  was  a  cruel  and  unjust 
criticism,  but  it  was  written  in  the  telling  style  of  oTie  of  the 
greatest  journalists  of  his  age,  and  it  had  behind  it  the  tre- 
mendous power  and  prestige  of  a  great  name  and  a  great  per- 
sonality. It  was  a  protest  that  might  well  cause  even  the 
greatest  to  hesitate,  nay,  even  to  falter;  but  Greeley,  able  as  he 
was,  had  not  taken  the  true  measure  of  the  man  with  whom  he 
was  dealing.  Lincoln,  without  hesitation,  composed  his  an- 
swer and  issued  it  in  the  form  of  that  memorable  Reply  to 
Horace  Greeley,  which,  in  its  grave  dignity,  its  unconscious 
pathos,  and  its  noble  severity,  stands  apart  in  the  history  of 
epistolary  literature.  And  the  nation  saw  that  the  man  whose 
tender  heart  could  not  refuse  the  widow's  prayer  to  spare  her 
soldier  son  who  was  condemned  to  be  shot  for  desertion,  could 
turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  prayer  of  "Twenty  Millions"  when  that 
prayer  clashed  with  what  Lincoln  felt  to  be  his  duty. 

While  but  few  have  the  opportunity  of  rendering  to  the 
nation  the  invaluable  and  patriotic  service  which  was  rendered 
by  Lincoln  or  Washington,  yet  every  enlightened  and  patriotic 
citizen  may  aid  the  community  in  which  he  lives  to  reach  a  sane 
and  reasonable  public  opinion,  and  after  all,  it  is  the  units 
of  individual  citizenship  which  collectively  make  up  the  nation 
and  control  its  destinies.  I  need  not  again  emphasize  the 
tremendous  importance  to  the  community  and  to  the  nation 
of  a  sound  and  informed  public  opinion.  I  have  tried  to  make 
clear  to  you  the  difference  between  public  opinion  and  public 
clamor,  a  distinction  which  is  of  the  first  importance,  but  one 
which,  unfortunately,  is  rarely  made.  Public  opinion,  in  the 
sense  in  which  I  have  used  the  term,  is  not  the  first  hasty  im- 
pression that  springs  from  ill-considered  or  insufficient  data, 
but  is  rather  the  sober  second  thought  of  a  community,  formed 
after  deliberate  and  thorough  consideration  of  the  questions 
at  issue.  It  follows  from  this  that  times  of  great  public  excite- 
ment, when  passion  and  prejudice  control,  are  not  the  times 

I  19  1 


conducive  to  the  formation  of  sound  public  opinion.  It  is  at 
just  such  times,  however,  that  the  educated  men  and  women 
of  this  country  can  render  their  most  important  public  services. 
They  should  not  lend  their  influence  or  their  support  to  the 
alarmists  or  the  sensationalists  of  the  hour;  nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  should  they  stand  passively  aside  and  leave  the  multitude 
to  its  own  guidance.  The  first  course  is  contemptible,  the 
second  worse  than  unpatriotic. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  educated  citizen  should  be  the 
antidote  to  the  demagogue.  The  demagogue  we  have  always 
with  us,  but  he  is  powerless  to  deceive  or  mislead  the  educated 
man.  He  has  never,  it  may  be  said  truthfully,  been  successful 
for  any  length  of  time  in  misleading  even  the  mass  of  the  people. 
It  is  the  demonstration  of  every  crisis  that  the  great  majority 
is  sound  at  heart,  that  it  is  willing  and  eager  to  do  what  is  right. 
In  every  instance  where  it  has  for  the  moment  failed,  the  fault 
may  be  traced  to  misinformation  or  to  misplaced  faith  in 
unworthy  leadership. 

The  duty  of  the  educated  man  is  here  plainly  indicated. 
It  is  nothing  less  than  to  meet  situations  as  they  arise,  with  the 
information  and  the  courage  with  which  knowledge  and  training 
have  equipped  him.  It  is  always  the  duty  of  intelligence  to 
guide  the  steps  of  ignorance,  and  only  the  shirk  or  the  coward 
among  educated  men  will  stand  back  when  times  and  con- 
ditions call  for  sound  counsels.  There  are,  I  know,  those  who 
maintain  that,  in  a  country  where  majorities  rule,  the  voice  of 
enlightened  judgment  is  lost  in  the  clamors  of  ignorance  and 
prejudice.  To  such  I  would  say  that  their  observation  of  social 
movements  is  at  fault,  and  they  have  read  history  to  little 
purpose.  The  record  of  American  life  does  not  justify  a  low 
estimate  of  the  popular  capacity  to  respond  to  the  higher  appeal. 
The  trimmer  and  the  timeserving  politician  always  adopt  such 
low  estimate,  and  so  long  as  they  can  deceive  the  public  they 
may  achieve  a  limited  and  temporary  success,  but  the  end  is 
always  the  same.  Failure  overtakes  them  in  their  short  career, 
and  oblivion  marks  them  for  her  own.    Our  great  leaders, 

[  20  ] 


from  the  day  of  Samuel  Adams  until  this  day,  have  always 
been  men  who  have  had  the  courage  of  their  convictions,  and 
who,  for  those  convictions,  have  had  to  face  public  opposition, 
oftentimes  vilification  and  abuse.  Often  they  stood  Bone,  and 
the  recognition  their  hearts  yearned  for  was  denied  them.  But 
they  strove  for  something  higher  than  popularity,  and  today 
they  stand  on  the  heights,  while  the  timeserver  and  the  trim- 
mer are  forgotten,  or  remembered  only  with  contempt. 

I  have  just  been  referring  to  our  great  political  leaders,  but 
what  I  have  said  concerning  them  applies  with  equal  force  to 
the  great  leaders  of  journalism.  In  journalism,  as  in  politics, 
we  have  the  inspiration  of  noble  traditions  and  the  stimulus  of 
great  names  and  high  ideals.  If  journalism  today  does  not 
universally  occupy  the  high  place  it  might,  it  has  only  itself  to 
blame.  Newspapers,  in  many  instances,  have  misused  their 
great  power;  they  have  employed  the  arts  of  the  demagogue  to 
gain  subscribers,  just  as  a  certain  type  of  politician  employs 
such  arts  to  win  votes.  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  this  is  true 
of  newspapers  generally,  any  more  than  it  is  true  of  politicians 
generally.  Our  country  affords  many  notable  instances  to  the 
contrary.  Here,  in  this  State,  there  is  published  a  newspaper 
which  has  long  sustained  with  signal  ability  and  prestige  the 
higher  traditions  of  journalism,  a  newspaper  whose  name  has 
become  a  synonym  for  moral  and  intellectual  force,  one  whose 
opinions  and  judgments  are  accorded  serious  consideration  by 
thinking  people  at  home  and  abroad.  Such  a  journal  is  truly 
a  precious  possession,  a  thing  to  be  valued  as  among  the  powers 
making  for  right  and  justice  among  men. 

It  has  been  said  of  the  profession  of  teaching  that  it  may 
be  either  "the  sorriest  of  trades  or  the  noblest  of  professions." 
This  dictum  is  markedly  true  of  journalism.  And  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  political  hope  of  the  present  century,  the  first  dec- 
ade of  which  is  now  drawing  to  a  close,  is  very  closely  bound 
up  with  the  winning  of  the  press  to  higher  as  distinguished  from 
lower  standards  of  judgment,  and  to  a  nobler  development  of 
wisdom  and  courage.    I  am  not  without  hope  that  the  great 

[  21  1 


powers  of  the  press  for  good  or  evil  will,  as  time  goes  on,  inspire 
in  it  an  enlarged  sense  of  responsibility,  give  it  a  new  birth  of 
devotion  to  the  higher  purposes  of  life.  I  hold  in  mental  vision, 
as  among  the  possibilities  of  a  not  remote  future,  a  press  so 
provided  on  the  side  of  its  necessities,  so  lifted  above  ordinary 
business  considerations,  that  it  may  sit  in  judgment  of  passing 
events,  inspired  only  by  the  true  spirit  of  justice.  I  have  in 
conception  a  journalism  exalted  above  considerations  of  financial 
gain.  Society  has  found  the  means  to  establish  a  limited  group 
of  civilizing  and  ennobling  agencies — notably  the  church,  the 
library,  the  art  gallery,  the  college — in  a  sphere  above  neces- 
sities and  motives  which  dominate  the  workaday  world.  I  see 
no  reason  why  our  journalism  should  not  be  sustained  by  the 
same  methods  of  endowment  which  have  so  notably  been 
applied  in  this  country  to  other  educational  agencies.  I  have 
no  thought  of  creating  a  journalism  different  from  the  best 
journalism  of  our  time,  only  to  remove  any  bias  of  opinion 
or  motive  which  may  come  through  strife  for  financial  gain. 
I  venture  to  suggest  that  the  press  in  its  higher  and  ultimate 
development  must  have  a  place  in  this  limited  company  of 
beneficent  things,  sustained  and  cherished  for  its  highest 
powers,  above  influences  tending  to  demoralization  of  judgment 
and  courage.  Surely,  as  time  goes  on,  men  must  see  that  the 
great — I  had  almost  said  the  supreme — powers  of  the  press 
should  be  freed  from  financial  necessities  which  tend  to  prej- 
udice and  to  bias.  I  present  to  you  this  conception  of  a 
definitely  and  securely  independent  press  as  among  ideals 
worth  cherishing  in  connection  with  the  evolutionary  march  of 
social  organization  toward  higher  standards  of  responsibility. 
But  my  main  purpose  today  is  not  so  much  to  dwell  upon 
the  duties  of  our  public  officials,  or  the  responsibilities  of  our 
journalists,  as  to  call  your  attention  to  the  duties  and  responsi- 
bilities which  you,  as  educated  men  and  women,  owe  to  your 
state  and  to  the  nation  at  large.  Our  government  has  already 
entered  upon  a  stage  in  its  development  when  "shirt-sleeves 
diplomacy"    and    "shirt-sleeves    legislation"    will    no    longer 


2g 


suffice.  The  problems,  both  foreign  and  domestic,  that  now 
confront  us  are  many  of  them  intricate  and  complex  in  the 
extreme.  They  are  problems  which  for  their  proper  solution 
call  for  the  judgment  of  the  trained  specialist.  The -first  hasty 
impression  of  the  man  in  the  street  will  not  do.  It  is  therefore 
incumbent  upon  you  to  do  all  you  can,  both  by  precept  and 
example,  to  discourage  hasty  and  ill-considered  action  in 
matters  pertaining  to  the  public  welfare.  Unfortunately,  the 
tendency  of  certain  recent  innovations  in  our  governmental 
machinery  makes  strongly  against  the  deliberation  that  is  so 
essential  to  sound  legislation.  These  innovations  proceed 
upon  the  assumption  that  no  particular  training  or  skill  is 
necessary  to  enact  good  laws,  that  the  opinion  of  the  man  in 
the  street  is  every  bit  as  valuable  as  the  opinion  of  the  experi- 
enced statesman,  and  that  where  a  man's  intentions  are  vaguely 
good,  neither  knowledge  nor  judgment  is  necessary  for  his 
guidance.  Imagine  what  would  happen  if  we  attempted  to 
conduct  a  large  business  upon  such  a  theory;  yet  the  govern- 
ment has  frequently  to  deal  with  issues  that  are  far  more  intri- 
cate than  those  that  ordinarily  arise  in  private  business.  Not 
only  this,  but  involved  questions  that  require  cool  and  dis- 
passionate consideration  may  be  suddenly  precipitated  into  the 
political  arena — perhaps  at  a  time  of  great  public  excitement— 
and  an  immediate  solution  demanded.  The  resulting  legis- 
lation may  reflect  the  public  temper  of  the  moment,  but  it  runs 
little  chance  of  reflecting  true  public  opinion — the  deliberate 
and  reasoned  judgment  of  the  community.  The  latest  of  these 
governmental  innovations,  The  Recall,  is  directly  opposed  to 
the  principle  of  representative  government.  It  tends  to  breed 
a  type  of  public  man  who  always  has  his  ear  to  the  ground,  a 
man  who  has  no  opinions  or  convictions  of  his  own,  and  whose 
one  aim  is  to  keep  in  office  by  turning  himself  into  a  political 
weathercock,  adjusted  to  catch  every  passing  gust  of  popular 
caprice.  This  is  not  the  kind  of  man  from  whom  the  country 
has  anything  to  hope.  He  has  no  fixed  standards  of  right  or 
wrong,  but  will  always  be  found  on  the  side  of  what  he  believes 

[  23  ] 


to  be  the  majority;  if  the  ratio  of  numbers  should  change  over- 
night, his  allegiance  will  change  with  them,  and  the  morning 
will  find  him  fighting  on  the  side  of  that  cause  which  he  opposed 
the  day  before. 

I  have  already  spoken  of  that  provision  of  law  which  pre- 
scribes stated  times  for  the  holding  of  elections.  Under  such 
provision,  elections  are  always  preceded  by  adequate  cam- 
paigns of  discussion,  and  such  period  for  discussion  can  always 
be  sufficient  to  clear  away  the  confusion  that  may  exist  from 
want  of  full  information,  or  temporary  passion  or  excitement. 
Now  one  of  many  objections  to  the  Recall  is  that  it  nullifies 
this  advantage.  Under  its  workings,  elections  may  be  brought 
on  upon  short  notice,  and  at  times  when  the  popular  mind  is 
least  calm,  least  informed,  least  capable  of  judgment.  It  is 
calculated  not  to  reserve  political  action  to  the  mood  of  calm 
counsels  and  sober  judgment,  but  to  precipitate  it  upon  the 
hour  of  passion  and  clamor.  Furthermore,  if  it  be  said  that 
the  Recall  is  necessary  to  get  rid  of  corrupt  officials,  who  by 
some  mischance  may  have  been  foisted  upon  the  public,  it 
need  only  be  answered  that,  in  this  respect,  society  is  sufficiently 
protected  under  our  laws  of  impeachment. 

These  are  only  a  few  of  the  many  mischiefs  possible,  even 
inevitable,  under  the  Recall  scheme.  A  moment's  reflection 
will  show  how  dangerous  a  weapon  it  must  be  in  the  hands  of  a 
disgruntled  and  unscrupulous  minority,  for  it  may  as  easily  be 
invoked  against  good  men  as  against  bad  men.  It  is  a  certain 
and  persistent  menace  to  independence  of  thought  and  integrity 
of  action,  at  the  same  time  holding  no  terrors  for  the  conscience- 
less and  shifty  timeserver  more  intent  upon  commending 
himself  to  popularity  and  upon  holding  his  office  than  upon 
doing  his  duty  in  the  face  of  possible  misapprehension  and 
prejudice.  Who  that  is  acquainted  with  the  spirit  and  the 
discontent  of  the  time  can  doubt  that  if  the  Recall  had  been  in 
force  during  the  administration  of  George  Washington,  that 
even  he,  the  Father  of  his  Country,  would  have  been  called  to 
account  for  his  stand  for  neutrality  in  the  war  between  England 

[  24  ] 


and  France,  and  summarily  removed  from  the  presidency? 
And  who  familiar  with  the  incidents  of  Lincoln's  administra- 
tion and  of  the  confused  state  of  the  public  mind  in  connection 
with  them,  can  doubt  that  this,  the  noblest  of  all  the -figures  of 
the  last  generation  of  Americans,  would  likewise  have  been 
dismissed  from  his  post  of  duty  by  the  distempered  recklessness 
of  a  passionate  and  passing  hour?  Those  who  urge  these 
innovations  may  say  that  it  is  not  proposed  to  apply  the  Recall 
to  national  affairs,  only  to  state  and  municipal  affairs.  My 
answer  is  that  crises  of  public  aberration  and  passion  occur 
more  frequently  in  the  municipality  and  in  the  state  than  in  the 
nation;  and  for  this  reason  the  Recall  principle  is  all  the  more 
vicious  in  its  application  to  state  and  municipal  affairs. 

I  have  spoken  especially  of  the  Recall  because  in  my 
judgment  this  proposal  stands  for  an  idea  in  radical  and  funda- 
mental conflict  with  the  scheme  of  representative  government 
as  it  has  come  down  to  us  from  the  Fathers.  But  the  Recall  is 
only  one  of  a  group  of  proposals  offered  to  the  American  people 
in  the  name  of  reform,  and  under  that  impulse  which  impels 
many  to  seek  short  cuts  to  political  perfection.  Taken  in  their 
entirety,  these  proposals  suggest  changes  that  would  not  only 
nullify  the  representative  principle  but  destroy  the  government 
which  has  grown  up  under  it.  That  government  is  now  almost 
a  century  and  a  quarter  old.  It  has  borne  us  successfully 
through  amazing  changes  of  material  and  social  conditions. 
It  has  enabled  us  to  weather  the  storms  of  one  of  the  greatest 
civil  conflicts  the  world  has  ever  known.  It  has  challenged  not 
only  the  admiration  of  the  world,  but  has  enforced  imitation 
more  or  less  marked  wherever  civilized  races  of  men  abide. 
It  still  serves  our  purposes,  still  distinguishes  us  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth.  Nobody  claims  for  our  Constitution  the 
merit  of  Utopian  completeness,  but  wise  men  see  that  it  has 
not  yet  reached  the  limits  of  its  possibilities,  nor  attained  the 
full  measure  of  what  it  holds  of  social  and  political  advantage. 
The  advancing  years  have  made  manifest  its  working  efficiency; 
the  strains  of  time  and  circumstance  have  disclosed  in  it  unex- 

[  25  ] 


pected  sources  of  strength.  Gladstone's  characterization  of 
it  as  "the  greatest  work  ever  struck  off  at  any  one  time  by 
the  mind  and  purpose  of  man"  remains  as  true  today  as  when 
it  was  spoken. 

As  rational  men  and  women  you  must  recognize  that  per- 
fection is  not  to  be  looked  for  in  human  institutions.  No  general 
rule  of  society  was  ever  yet  framed,  however  salutary  in  the 
main,  that  would  not  work  hardship  in  particular  cases,  and 
no  political  institution  will  ever  be  devised  through  human 
ingenuity  that  will  not  exhibit  defects  in  the  course  of  its 
operations.  And  while  this  knowledge  ought  not  to  deter  us 
from  laboring  incessantly  for  the  betterment  of  our  laws  and 
institutions,  it  should  guard  us  against  the  danger  of  revolution- 
ary changes.  Almost  invariably  such  proposals  are  found  to 
be  false  lights,  with  new  colors,  perhaps,  but  not  essentially  dis- 
similar from  those  which  precipitancy  or  quackery  are  forever 
holding  before  the  eyes  of  discontent  and  credulity. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  account  for  the  attention  which  well- 
meaning  but  uncritical  people  give  to  loudly  heralded  short  cuts 
to  political  perfection.  That  there  are  those  who  turn  to  the 
support  of  every  new  suggestion,  earnestly  and  even  in  the 
face  of  repeated  disappointment,  is  a  mark  of  that  aspiration 
which  pervades  the  American  character.  But  aspiration — 
even  moral  aspiration — uninstructed  by  knowledge,  unregu- 
lated by  judgment,  may  in  the  sphere  of  constructive  politics 
work  infinite  mischief.  Those  who  proceed  under  its  impulses, 
greedily  clutching  at  everything  that  offers  or  appears  to  offer 
relief  from  the  shortcomings  of  our  system,  may  be  compared 
to  the  man  in  the  crowd  who  offers  his  money  for  a  patent 
nostrum  that  may  mask  the  symptoms  of  his  disease  even  while 
augmenting  its  real  virulence. 

Observation  has  convinced  me  that  those  who  lightly 
propose  modifications  in  the  fundamental  structures  of  our 
government  have  no  true  comprehension  of  the  force  and 
meaning  of  their  proposals.  Those  who  so  ardently  urge  these 
revolutionary  modifications  do  not  understand  that  they  would 

[  26  ] 


surely  nullify  and  destroy  representative  government.  They 
do  not  stop  to  consider — in  the  limitations  of  their  knowledge 
they  do  not  understand — that  the  principle  of  pure  democracy, 
which  they  would  substitute  for  the  representative~principle, 
is  a  thing  niched  from  the  scrap-heap  of  past  times  and  dis- 
credited systems,  a  device  many  times  used  and  as  often  dis- 
carded as  wanting  in  the  elements  essential  to  a  permanent 
or  stable  government. 

It  is  for  you  to  whom  I  speak  today,  educated  men  and 
women,  to  examine  all  proposals  of  political  change,  in  the 
light  of  knowledge  and  under  the  guidance  of  judgment,  and 
to  appraise  each  at  its  true  value.  It  is  for  you  to  recognize 
and  to  expose  the  fallacies  which  too  often  lie  in  novelty  and 
pretension,  to  caution  and  restrain  those  who  would  rush 
blindly  into  the  field  of  political  experimentation,  to  instruct 
the  uninformed  and  the  thoughtless  that  our  Constitution 
affords  in  itself  the  best  and  surest  means  of  constructive  and 
wholesome  change.  It  is  for  you  to  insist  that  such  changes 
as  we  make  shall  harmonize  with  and  sustain  the  integrity  of 
our  political  fabric.  In  brief,  it  is  for  you,  educated  men  and 
women,  to  guard  our  system  against  the  proposals  of  a  reckless 
innovation  which  would  cheapen  it  to  a  scheme  of  incon- 
sistencies, and  which  would  debase  our  noble  Constitution  to  a 
thing  of  shreds  and  patches. 

I  am  sure  that  I  make  no  mistake  when  I  appeal  with 
confidence  to  men  and  women  of  instructed  and  trained  minds, 
when  I  appeal  to  conscience  allied  with  intelligence,  on  the 
score  of  its  high  and  special  responsibilities,  to  cherish  that 
which  has  come  down  to  us  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic, 
that  which  has  sustained  us  in  a  progress  unparalleled  in  the 
records  of  mankind. 


t  27  ] 


5  7     j 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


L  OCT 


REC'D  LD-URL 
FEB  2  5 199B 


Form  L-0 

23m -2, '43a 


AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


L  007  360  499  3 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGII 


AA    000  821  043 


